ARCHIVIST OF THE HALL OF RECORDS 67

to continue to so advise you, so long as the statute denies the right
to destroy original records in any instance where a statutory require-
ment exists that they be permanently maintained. It was on this
basis that our opinion of October 31, 1946 addressed to Dr. Riley
of the Health Department proceeded. The records in that case
were required to be permanently bound and preserved. Accordingly,
we held that they could not be destroyed.

In our opinion of October 30, 1950 addressed to the Police
Commissioner of Baltimore City, because the statutory provisions
required that the books, journals and other documents of the Com-
missioner be "always * * * open to inspection", we held that they
had to be permanently retained.

Our opinion of June 4, 1953 to Dr. Russell Fisher held that by
a statutory provision requiring the retention of original reports and
detailed findings of autopsy, the Chief Medical Examiner was requir-
ed to permanently retain the same. In several other instances, we
have ruled that even though the statutory authority existed for
microfilming records of particular departments, the originals which
had been microfilmed still were required to be retained in the ab-
sence of legislative authority to dispose of the same.

We have felt that we must construe statutory enactments
which imply that the original records should be retained in favor of
permanent retention thereof. We think this is required of us in
interpreting a statute which expressly refuses to authorize destruc-
tion of records to be maintained permanently and permanent books
of account. Only if the statute covering the activities of a State
agency or department contains no indication that its records must
be retained have we felt free to advise you that proper arrangements
for disposition of the same could be made.

Unless the statute is amended to remove therefrom the clause
which denies the authority to destroy those records required by sta-
tute to be maintained permanently, we must continue to adhere to
the course of action heretofore laid down. We can appreciate the
problem which is posed by immense accumulations of records. We
can also appreciate that it is the intention of your Department to be
certain that the originals of all important records are preserved. In
the absence of legislative authority which clearly permits the destru-
ction of the originals, however, we will not feel free to advise you
that the originals may be destroyed upon microfilming thereof.

I trust that you fully appreciate our position in the matter.

Very truly yours,
Norman P. Ramsey
Npr:MH Deputy Attorney General